GOP Assault on Social Security Could be 'Death Sentence' for Nation's Disabled

$1200 is a big check, Most do not get near that.
The ones that have worked min. wage jobs all their life normally average $600 a month.
If you have a long work history, and made decent wages, the average pay is $800 to $1000.
Very very few get the $1200 advertised.

As long as there were no elections we would be rid of a goodly share of the corruption, and most of the political showmanship. Not to mention
politicians hired through outsourcing could actually work full time unlike the elected officials we currently have.

May aunt gets $1200 a month in disability. She paid into the system her entire life she's in her 60's. She's recovering from cancer and a liver
transplant. The doctors won't clear her to work. She has a medical degree and could be making a lot more then she gets from social security.

I get $800 a month in disability. $300 goes to food and medical expenses. I have paranoid schizophrenia. They cut me by 20% I'm going to be living on
the street. I just had my food stamps cut off I was told I make too much money. I got a $12 raise in disability at the beginning of the year. Social
services told me I make too much so I lost $200 in food stamps. They cut me 20% I might as well commit a crime so I'll have a roof over my head.

...a new front in the GOP's class war and could equal a "death sentence" for many poor recipients...

...the move is "a cynical attempt to divide the senior population from the disability community...

Analyst Richard Eskow, a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, described the push as "a new front" in the what he dubbed a "Republican
Class War."

The only way the money can be judged "spent" is if Enzi and the rest of Congress vote to cut the benefits workers already have paid for. That's
what he seems to be plotting.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) lambasted the GOP's "ideological war on our most important national safety net."

"Republicans are manufacturing a phony crisis in Social Security in order to cut the earned benefits of millions of the most vulnerable people in
this country,"...

Inequality is our era’s gravest economic challenge. When it comes to meeting that challenge, Social Security isn’t a problem; it’s part of
the solution.

There are a few more rhetorical gems in there, but I figured I'd keep the list minimal.

My point is that this article is nothing but alarmist arguments that don't even address the true problem with Social Security, when is meant to pay
back a recipient the amount that they paid into the system. But when life spans increase, but the eligibility age remains the same, as do retirement
ages (basically), the reality is that you start having to take from what others have put into the system in order to cover those overdrafting their SS
accounts.

And then there's this gem from Sen. Sanders:

Sanders, for his part, has proposed "scrapping the cap that allows multi-millionaires to pay a much smaller percentage of their income into
Social Security than the middle class." He claims that increasing the size of that cap could bolster funding for the program past 2060.

So, in saying that, he's admitting that without the help from wealthy America, the 'others,' as he seems to see everyone else, would not have put
in enough money in their Social Security to cover what they're using from the coffers. Yet, earlier in the article, it was noted:

In a scathing indictment published Wednesday, LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzick blasted the logic behind the GOP's efforts.

"Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) not only displayed a shocking level of ignorance of Social Security and the disability program, but offered no solutions
whatsoever to the looming crisis—which he repeatedly mischaracterized," Hiltzick wrote. "Enzi also trotted out one of the hoariest lies about
Social Security in the conservatives' playbook: the claim that there's no money in either the old-age or disability trust fund."

He continued:

[T]his assertion is nothing but an attempt to cheat working Americans of the benefits they've paid for. ...

So, which is it, is this money that which these individuals have paid for and are entitled to get in return, or possibly, just maybe, many of them are
overdrawing the amount of money that they put in over their working careers, and the SS accounts truly are being drained more quickly that
replenished. Keep in mind that my SS dollars are going toward paying the current SS recipients bills, because the reality is that the money that they
put in to the system was spent long ago on people before them. This is a simple reality that cannot be ignored, but has been throughout the comments
in your article.

This is why those of us who advocate the freedom to do with our own money as we choose prefer to be able to opt out of the broken SS system and save
our own money for our own retirement and futures--I have zero faith that the system will be viable by the time I'm of elligible age to receive it,
and would prefer that my money not go to other people sucking off the system under the guise of, "Well, they paid for this."

This article that you posted is nothing but appeals to emotion and the same "hoariest" of rhetoric that the progressive quoted in this article
accuses only the Repubs of using. Both sides of the aisle are responsible for this debacle, but just remember that it was FDR (a far-left Democrat)
who signed this broken system into law back in '35. I'll refrain from thanking the Dems (or Repubs) for anything about this system.

My point is that this article is nothing but alarmist arguments that don't even address the true problem with Social Security, when is meant to pay
back a recipient the amount that they paid into the system. But when life spans increase, but the eligibility age remains the same, as do retirement
ages (basically), the reality is that you start having to take from what others have put into the system in order to cover those overdrafting their SS
accounts.

If you can't deal with facts - or at least the facts presented here please feel free to start your own thread on the 'problems' with Social Security -
and don't forget to start with the millions of people that it has saved from poverty and homelessness with minimal overhead.

But please stick to the underhanded (a seven year old would call it cheating) change to rules to 'knowingly' harm the weakest of our society in this
thread.

Applaud that action all you like - but don't divert from the facts nor the perpertrators.

As long as there were no elections we would be rid of a goodly share of the corruption, and most of the political showmanship. Not to mention
politicians hired through outsourcing could actually work full time unlike the elected officials we currently have.

Lol's

I've been thinking about countries where government of the US could be outsourced to.

The highest bidder perhaps - but China would win and we don't want those capitalist-commies (oh wait....) running the show.

How about Iceland. All their finance companies went bankrupt in the wake of the 2008 crash excepting one lone company, owned and run by women. We
could outsource to that company and maybe stand a chance.

Bhutan - that's it - Gross National Happiness vs Gross National Product - has a ring to it don't ya think.

Mexico - people say they are taking over one 'wet-back' at a time anyway and they've got great call centers - all my deported friends work at them
for a fine wage with their from-birth English skills.

If you can't add something of substance to your own thread when people who oppose your view are willing to take the time to do that for you in the
interest of dialogue and discussion, why do you even bother? The discussion goes beyond just the rule change (it's concerning an entire system in the
government, so obviously it's going to branch out to other aspects of the system), and if you can't accept that truth, then seriously, why do you
even bother to reply or feign an interest in discussing it?

Although, I do find it amusing that you rebut my comment that calls out your article's theme of only appealing to emotion by trying to appeal to my
emotions.

They want to defund Social Security and give that extra money to their criminal friends on Wall Street.
It is always about taking others money and transferring it to their wealthy friends. That is what these policies do.
Squeeze people more to extract more wealth.

Good point why do we need to send our military overseas when we have a whole ocean separating is from any potential enemies couldn't we just beef up
our coast guard and navy? Plus we keep sending billions of dollars overseas to countries that hate and despise us even the Europeans don't want us in
their countries anymore why don't we just pack up and leave ?

The Constitution talked about defending our borders and not getting entangled in foreign affairs but when there is money to be made, that is all
thrown out the window. We do not have a defensive military for the nation, but a defensive military for the Multinational Corporations and Banks that
own our government.

I would like someone that is pro Constitution explain how the world is our nation? We have bases all over the world and are involved in conflicts
everywhere.

Since Corporations pass taxes onto consumers and tax payers pay for "defense" it is the Big Corporations and Banks getting a Free Ride. The 99
percent pay for the majority of taxes with that understanding.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.